Jorge GEVARA, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Ex-Director of Prisons; F.B. Hubbard, Superintendent; Crutchfield, Assistant Superintendent of Programs; Wendy Branch, Unit Manager; Perritt, Unit Manager; John Doe, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; John Doe, Facility Classification Committee; R. Hampton, Investigating Officer (now S.T.G. Officer); L. Star, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees; Jorge Gevara, a/k/a Jorge Galeas, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd Bennett, Ex-Director of Prisons; F.B. Hubbard, Superintendent; Crutchfield, Assistant Superintendent of Programs; Wendy Branch, Unit Manager; Perritt, Unit Manager; John Doe, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; John Doe, Facility Classification Committee; R. Hampton, Investigating Officer (now S.T.G. Officer); L. Star, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees; Jorge Gevara, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd Bennett, Ex-Director of Prisons; F.B. Hubbard, Superintendent; Crutchfield, Assistant Superintendent of Programs; Wendy Branch, Unit Manager; Perritt, Unit Manager; John Doe, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; R. Hampton, Investigating Officer (Now S.T.G. Officer); L. Star, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees, 406 F. App'x 704

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Jorge Gevara appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the magistrate judge’s interlocutory orders denying Gevara’s motions seeking leave to amend, to reconsider, and for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and the magistrate judge. Gevara v. Bennett, No. 1:09-cv-000343-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2010; Aug. 30, 2010; 2010 WL 3787119, Sept. 21, 2010). We deny Gevara’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. Gevara’s appeals from the magistrate judge's orders were interlocutory when filed.

The district court’s subsequent entry of a final judgment permits review of the magistrate judge’s orders under the doctrine of cumulative finality. See In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir.2005); Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir.1992).